Plants

[Chesterton]

Well ... he wouldn't be a scientist, that's for sure.

I think it's the heart they lack.

 

[Brightmoon]

I think it's the heart they lack.

unwarranted stereotype as scientists are regular people. Scientist is a job description not a psychological condition or handicap

 

[BroRoyVa79]

This is profoundly ignorant*. You are attacking a strawman. Why do I make this assertion?

• If evolutionary theory were perfect there would be no need for thousands of researchers in palaeontology, biology, genetics and the like to be conducting research on the subject.
• All evolutionists, if they are properly educated in the matter, will criticise aspects of evolutionary theory. That is how science works. If there were no criticism, there would be no advance.
• The only times I have seen Evolutionary theory described as perfect is when it is being attacked by Creationists.
• I could produce hundreds, probably thousands, of examples of "attacks" on evolutionary theory by evolutionists. In practically every case they would be attacks on specific details, not on the broad sweep. I suggest you contemplate the potential dishonesty of a statment that implies it is the concept of evolution itself that is being criticised.

*Please note I am asserting you are profoundly ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, not that you are, in general, ignorant. (The content of your posts demonstrates both of these points. i.e. you are well informed on many matters, but you are ignorant of evolution.)

I keep saying I'm finished in this topic, but I wanted to address this. I don't plan on a back and forth, but:

I take it you did not read the entire thread. OP was the one who asserted Evolution was somehow unquestioned and therefore "perfect" or in their words "robust" when I said the theory had holes. Therefore, I was not attacking a strawman. I was the one who suggested OP did not know every facet of Evolution throughout the course of our discussion. Regardless of my use of words, it was not a strawman. See below OP's post that started this particular discussion about the fallibility of the theory.

That’s not true that evolution is being questioned. I’ve got a biology degree so I should know . It’s actually one of the more robust science theories with so much evidence that it’s not being questioned at all. Not natural selection nor common descent are in doubt . Biologists are currently just filling in details

If a theory is not being questioned that means it has hit the level of unquestionability. It's beyond doubt, indisputable, certain, solid, robust, dare I say "perfect?" At least, from a particular perspective.

I mean "perfect" is found under "unquestionable" see here: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unquestionable

I was challenging this assertion. You and OP seem to have a problem with only picking out one or two statements in an argument rather than looking at the whole argument and staying on subject.

OP has yet to truly answer several points and pieces of evidence I presented. Instead, OP only dismisses them because of their source, if the source happens to be religious. However, OP never truly addressed the non-religious sources, either, which disprove the assertion. Whether one chooses to believe evolution or not, the theory is not without question. That was my position. Regardless of my word choice.

Again, let me reiterate. The topic of discussion was whether or not evolution was being questioned. Not whether or not the questions were valid, good, or acceptable, just whether or not it was being questioned. It did not even matter who questioned the theory, just that it has been questioned. Something you and OP don't seem to understand as you both rail against "Creationists" as the only ones who question Evolution. When that's not true. Especially since, from your second bullet point, it would seem you and I agree that even Evolutionists criticize the theory. The point, the theory is questioned from non-religious people and religious people. One last point, many of the religious people believe Evolution although they believe it was God who engineered the process. Thus, they are still Evolutionists who question Evolution. Got it?

Edited for clarity

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I keep saying I'm finished in this topic, but I wanted to address this. I don't plan on a back and forth, but:

I take it you did not read the entire thread. OP was the one who asserted Evolution was somehow unquestioned and therefore "perfect" or in their words "robust" when I said the theory had holes. Therefore, I was not attacking a strawman. I was the one who suggested OP did not know every facet of Evolution throughout the course of our discussion. Regardless of my use of words, it was not a strawman. See below OP's post that started this particular discussion about the fallibility of the theory.



If a theory is not being questioned that means it has hit the level of unquestionability. It's beyond doubt, indisputable, certain, solid, robust, dare I say "perfect?" At least, from a particular perspective.

I mean "perfect" is found under "unquestionable" see here: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unquestionable

I was challenging this assertion. You and OP seem to have a problem with only picking out one or two statements in an argument rather than looking at the whole argument and staying on subject.

OP has yet to truly answer several points and pieces of evidence I presented. Instead, OP only dismisses them because of their source, if the source happens to be religious. However, OP never truly addressed the non-religious sources, either, which disprove the assertion. Whether one chooses to believe evolution or not, the theory is not without question. That was my position. Regardless of my word choice.

Again, let me reiterate. The topic of discussion was whether or not evolution was being questioned. Not whether or not the questions were valid, good, or acceptable, just whether or not it was being questioned. It did not even matter who questioned the theory, just that it has been questioned. Something you and OP don't seem to understand as you both rail against "Creationists" as the only ones who question Evolution. When that's not true. Especially since, from your second bullet point, it would seem you and I agree that even Evolutionists criticize the theory. The point, the theory is questioned from non-religious people and religious people. One last point, many of the religious people believe Evolution although they believe it was God who engineered the process. Thus, they are still Evolutionists who question Evolution. Got it?

Edited for clarity

I'd say you need to brush up on your comprehension skills for 2 reasons:
1. ToE not being questioned refers to the overall theory, not the detailed mechanisms and processes. As a Christian surely you recognise the difference between Baptist/Methodist/Episcopalian etc. Do they all disagree about the overarching message of Christianity or just the details?

2. Robust =/= unquestionable =/= perfect. Simple English.

 

[Brightmoon]

That’s silly , by their very nature theories aren’t perfect as , to date , we don’t know everything there is to know about living organisms . Science is a self-correcting process. The few things that Darwin or Haeckel got wrong have long since been corrected or discarded. Yet y’all bring these up as if biologists said it yesterday. These are all PRATTS .These are all creationist misconceptions . Creationist organizations have a nasty habit of giving out disinformation and outright lies to cast doubt on some of the best supported theories in science. Now THAT’S a fact !

 

[BroRoyVa79]

I'd say you need to brush up on your comprehension skills for 2 reasons:

I disagree. It seems you and any others who want to come in and misrepresent my words need a proverbial play by play recap of the discussion. However, first, I will admit that either I or Brightmoon could've asked for further clarification in meaning. I will admit fault for not doing that, but my initial statement in the discussion implied that the theory was questioned in various aspects, not as a whole as you seem to want to imply.

Topic started regarding the "breath of life" in plants. When Brightmoon revealed she looks at things from an evolutionary perspective, I responded as so below.:

Well, I now understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with Evolution. Too many holes in the theory so I don't see us as related to plants in that way. That would be your first major disagreement with any Creationist. You see the origin of the world differently than they do. It is a never going to match up for you with them. I would think an honest approach would be to admit first and foremost, Evolution, although sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, is not a perfect theory of the origin of the universe. Even some Evolutionists criticize it.

Regardless of that, Brightmoon responded to the above as so:

That’s not true that evolution is being questioned. I’ve got a biology degree so I should know . It’s actually one of the more robust science theories with so much evidence that it’s not being questioned at all. Not natural selection nor common descent are in doubt . Biologists are currently just filling in details

Do you see the delimma?
I didn't rail against a strawman and while you can take issue with my saying Evolution is sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, my general point was that the theory was being criticized and there are too many holes in the theory. "Too many holes" would imply a variety of questions being asked in a variety of aspects and not simply the theory only being questioned as a whole. I didn't say it was only being questioned as a whole anywhere. I simply said there were "too many holes in the theory" and that "Even some Evolutionists criticize it."

I went on to provide evidence that certain people, some Religious evolutionist, question certain aspects of Evolution and Evolution as a whole. You guys are the one trying to limit the conversation to one category. Not me. Got it?

1. ToE not being questioned refers to the overall theory, not the detailed mechanisms and processes. As a Christian surely you recognise the difference between Baptist/Methodist/Episcopalian etc. Do they all disagree about the overarching message of Christianity or just the details?

I wouldn't even begin to say Christianity isn't being questioned in some categories nor as a whole. Moot point as this is exactly what I was arguing. You and anyone else who reads into my statements otherwise are the ones with questionable reading comprehension.

2. Robust =/= unquestionable =/= perfect. Simple English.

See above. Brightmoon said it was not questioned, albeit after I said it was presented as perfect. Which is what Ophiolite wanted to nitpick on:

I would think an honest approach would be to admit first and foremost, Evolution, although sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, is not a perfect theory of the origin of the universe.

Here's an example how this works:
Let's pick Color Theory, for instance, which is presented largely unchallenged in academia. If a student opens a text book they are presented with Color Theory as it is understood today without any potential challenges, not saying there aren't any in reality, again this is just being used as an example. The student is taught that the theory that is widely embraced. Unless the teacher is good enough to expose the student to criticism the good student has to learn of any challenges artists may have with the current Color Theory by reading sources outside their textbooks and/or lectures. This even extends to popularizers such as Dawkins, Gould, etc. Mainstream public does not receive from them challenges among the different views or pieces of the theory, insteady they receive a perfect picture of the theory.

Therefore, a statment such as "Color Theory, although sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, is not a perfect theory of how color works in design," is a valid statement because academia does not widely present the criticisms of Color Theory to all students. Some may, but widely, no. It is not in all textbooks, the student has to go out of their way to discover these criticisms in the theory. (Another example: go back to my point that they still have flawed evidence in the textbooks, using said evidence to present the theory as if said evidence has no issues.) Equally, the public at large only receives a representation of Color Theory as a widely embraced theory by the artistic community so they go about their daily lives believing Color Theory is perfectly without question.

Also to further clarify, Academia is not limited to Colleges, it includes everything from Grade School to College. Lastly, there are testimonies across the nation from certain teachers, professors, etc. who get in trouble for teaching non-religious criticisms of the theory.

Edited: Fat fingered the Quote tags and Brightmoon's quote did not show up in initial post.

 

[Brightmoon]

Scientists argue over the details of evolution continually usually in reference to one specific genus or family. Creationists blow these tempests in teapot arguments out of proportion to claim that evolution is in trouble. That is not true that the theories are in trouble or even being radically changed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I just read an interesting post that I couldn’t respond to on another thread . Some creationist said that plants don’t have the “ breath of life” . Now that sounds weird to me because plants do everything that animals do except walk around. They eat , breath oxygen , sleep at night, reproduce, respond to physical damage, communicate with others of the same species and insects , and some can even move rapidly, etc.

Your thoughts?

Animals and man were formed out of the dust of the ground, plants sprang directly from it. They were made for food for both animals and man. Nowhere is nephesh talked about in relation to plants, only animals and man.

They are food stock, nothing more.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Scientists argue over the details of evolution continually usually in reference to one specific genus or family. Creationists blow these tempests in teapot arguments out of proportion to claim that evolution is in trouble. That is not true that the theories are in trouble or even being radically changed.

Only an evolutionist would find no problem in every fossil creature remaining the same across supposedly millions of years and never changing at all. Then new forms appearing suddenly.....

But then if they didn’t incorrectly classify the new forms as separate species they wouldn’t have such a problem.

Husky, Mastiff, Chinook......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd say you need to brush up on your comprehension skills for 2 reasons:
1. ToE not being questioned refers to the overall theory, not the detailed mechanisms and processes. As a Christian surely you recognise the difference between Baptist/Methodist/Episcopalian etc. Do they all disagree about the overarching message of Christianity or just the details?

2. Robust =/= unquestionable =/= perfect. Simple English.

But in a theory if the detailed mechanisms are incorrect....

Take the suns heliosphere. Every theory we had was shown to be wrong by voyager and IBEX missions. So apparently solar system formation theories which led to those incorrect predictions must also be incorrect, yes? But the theories leading to the incorrect predictions are never questioned....

And hence the problem..... the base assumptions that led to the incorrect theories are never assumed incorrect....

Now if the different beliefs of the different branches of Christianity led to a different conclusion of the overreaching message of Christianity there might be a comparison to make, but they all lead to the need for salvation......

 

[Ophiolite]

Take the suns heliosphere. Every theory we had was shown to be wrong by voyager and IBEX missions.

Please specify which theories were wrong.
Describe exactly what was found to be wrong in each case.
Provide citations relating to both these aspects, from peer reviewed, reputable journals.

Alternatively, withdraw your assertion, which presently - until you meet my request - is unsupported.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But in a theory if the detailed mechanisms are incorrect....

Take the suns heliosphere. Every theory we had was shown to be wrong by voyager and IBEX missions. So apparently solar system formation theories which led to those incorrect predictions must also be incorrect, yes? But the theories leading to the incorrect predictions are never questioned....

And hence the problem..... the base assumptions that led to the incorrect theories are never assumed incorrect....

Now if the different beliefs of the different branches of Christianity led to a different conclusion of the overreaching message of Christianity there might be a comparison to make, but they all lead to the need for salvation......

Oh look, somebody who claims to understand science who doesn't know what a Theory is. Colour me completely unsurprised.

 

[Brightmoon]

Only an evolutionist would find no problem in every fossil creature remaining the same across supposedly millions of years and never changing at all. Then new forms appearing suddenly.....

But then if they didn’t incorrectly classify the new forms as separate species they wouldn’t have such a problem.

Husky, Mastiff, Chinook......

Species last about an average of a million years so the fact that the fossils are unchanged shouldn’t surprise you much . That a long time. I hear from creationists about coelacanths all the time. “ they’re unchanged for millions of years“ they like to spout . Which only goes to prove that they’ve never looked at coelacanth species. Yes even laymen can see that the fossils are coelacanths but it’s easy to see that they’re different species. And the modern genus Latimeria isn’t one of the fossil species.

Second point . Genetic changes that will cause an organism to undergo speciation will change things like scent, color and biochemistry ( which affects both mate selection and natural selection) long before there are changes to the body structure . Very very rarely will that fossilize. Modern tuataras and sand dollars are pretty much structurally identical to some of the fossil ones. Yet the climate has changed , foodstuffs have evolved or gone extinct . Ditto for Diseases ,other Animals , plants , fungi, bacteria and predators . The fossil isn’t assumed to be the same species even if the bones or other body parts are identical.

Creationists have their own versions of evolution that mainstream science don’t accept. If you believe your silly strawman versions of evolution then you miss learning about the real deal. Brother Roy and Justa both have learned that silly creationist version of evolution . I’ll admit it took me a while to figure this out because I had to check out the creationist versions . Outright lies, newspeak and silly misconceptions aren’t “holes in evolution “ they’re just creationist fantasies

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I didn't rail against a strawman and while you can take issue with my saying Evolution is sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, my general point was that the theory was being criticized and there are too many holes in the theory. "Too many holes" would imply a variety of questions being asked in a variety of aspects and not simply the theory only being questioned as a whole. I didn't say it was only being questioned as a whole anywhere. I simply said there were "too many holes in the theory" and that "Even some Evolutionists criticize it."

The Theory is not being criticized. That's the point we're making and you keep failing to see.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If God did not give life to plants, they would not grow.

Then I guess God is the sun?
I just call it "sun".

People can graft plants together. I have not seen a peach tree made in a test tube.

So?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Plants don't have blood , that's why for example when Cain gave fruit of his work ( plants ) for offering it was rejected by God . Plants have no blood = no life .

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Deuteronomy 12:23
“Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.”

Did you just say that only things that bleed, can be considered "alive"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, I now understand where you are coming from. I don't agree with Evolution. Too many holes in the theory so I don't see us as related to plants in that way. That would be your first major disagreement with any Creationist. You see the origin of the world differently than they do. It is a never going to match up for you with them. I would think an honest approach would be to admit first and foremost, Evolution, although sold to the public and portrayed in academia as perfect, is not a perfect theory of the origin of the universe. Even some Evolutionists criticize it.

"origins of the universe"?
Did you mean to say that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are not god-of-the-gap arguments, but of course, at this point, I don't expect you to move on that since it's apparent you have decided not to listen to any of their criticisms.

Here's where you are wrong.

We did listen to their criticisms. And after listening to them, we concluded, based on what they said, that they didn't know what they are talking about and easily exposed the dishonesty, misunderstandings, strawmen, quote mines, misrepresentations and outright lies.

They should change their name to the Dishonesty Institute.

It even went to court for crying out loud. One of the things Behe said their under oath, was that if ID is to be considered science, then astrology also has to be considered science.
You know: horoscopes and such. These folks had to change the definition of "scientific theory", just to be able to call their religions ideas "scientific theories". And in the process, astrology happens to fit that "new" definition. Oeps!

Clearly, these are not the go-to sources that you think they are.
Perhaps you should also google the following "cdesign proponentsists" and read where that comes from.

You're entitled to your opinion

Sorry, none of the things expressed on these points, are opinions. They are facts.

You may not agree with those challenges, that's fair, but to make the bold claim it has not been challenged shows a biased, narrowminded opinion of the whole debate.

Challenges that are based on dishonesty, lies, misrepresentations, ignorance, strawmen,... aren't actual proper challenges.

Ignoring and denyhing all the evidence and then saying it's unsupported because there's no evidence, is not a challenge. It's just stupid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you even call yourself a Christian? You sound more like an undercover Agnostic or Atheist?

Just a heads up: the mods don't like such insinuations around here.

 

[Chinchilla]

Did you just say that only things that bleed, can be considered "alive"?

No , according to Bible you are dead alredy if you don't believe but you can bleed .